Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "A cosmologically motivated description of the dark matter halo profile for the Low Surface Brightness Galaxy, Malin 1"

See other formats


A cosmologically motivated description of the dark matter halo 
profile for the Low Surface Brightness Galaxy, Malin 1 



oo 

O 
O 



Marc S. Seigar 
Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 S. University Avenue, 

Little Rock, AR 72204 
Arkansas Center for Space and Planetary Sciences, 202 Old Museum Building, University of Arkansas, 

Fayetteville, AR 72701 



o 



> 

(N 



O 
OO 
O 



% 



ABSTRACT 

In this paper we derive a possible mass profile for the low surface brightness galaxy, Malin 
1, based upon previously published space-based and ground-based photometric properties and 
kinematics. We use properties of the bulge, normal disk, outer extended disk and H I mass 
as inputs into mass profile models. We find that the dark matter halo model of Malin 1 is 
best described by a halo profile that has undergone adiabatic contraction, inconsistent with the 
findings for most disk galaxies to date, yet consistent with rotation curve studies of M31. More 
importantly, we find that Malin 1 is baryon dominated in its central regions out to a radius of 
~ 10 kpc (in the bulge region). Low-surface brightness galaxies are often referred to as being dark 
matter dominated at all radii. If this is the case, then Malin 1 would seem to have characteristics 
similar to those of normal barred disk galaxies, as suggested by other recent work. We also 
find that Malin 1 also falls on the rotation curve shear versus spiral arm pitch angle relation for 
normal galaxies, although more LSB galaxies need to be studied to determine if this is typical. 

Subject headings: Galaxies 



1. Introduction 

Malin 1 is a highly unusual disk galaxy char- 
acterized by an enormous H I rich and extremely 
low surface brightness disk (Bothun et al. 1987; 
Pickering et al. 1997). It has the largest radial 
extent of any known spiral galaxy, with low sur- 
face brightness emission extending out to ^ 100 
kpc, and its disk was found to have an extrapo- 
lated central surface brighness of only /io ~ 25.5 
mag arcsec"^ in the IZ-band (Bothun et al. 1987; 
Impey & Bothun 1989), with an exponential disk 
scalelength of ~ 50 — 70 kpc (e.g., Moore & Parker 
2007). Although it has a very low surface bright- 
ness, its optical luminosity is M„ ~ —22.9 mag 
(Pickering et al. 1997), due to its large extent. It 
also has an extremely high gas mass, with an es- 
timated H I mass of ~ 7 x lO^^M© (Pickering et 
al. 1997; Matthews et al. 2001). As a result Ma- 
lin 1 is often considered a Low Surface Brightness 
(LSB) galaxy. However, recent studies of Malin 1 



have started to highlight features more typical of 
normal disk galaxies (e.g., Barth 2007). The anal- 
ysis of a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) WFPC2 
F814W (/-band) image presented by Barth (2007) 
shows that Malin 1 possesses an inner normal stel- 
lar disk, with characteristics similar to those in 
regular disk galaxies. They calculate an exponen- 
tial disk scalelength of ^ 5 kpc and a disk central 
surface brightness of ~ 20 mag arcsec"^. These 
data suggest that Malin 1 has characteristics sim- 
ilar to those of normal disk galaxies, in particular 
barred lenticular galaxies (SBOs), which typically 
show an outer disk with a larger disk scalelength 
(Aguirre et al. 2005). Moore & Parker (2007) have 
also recently presented a deep ground-based image 
of Malin 1 , which shows spiral structure in its in- 
ner disk, another hint that Malin 1 may be more 
closely related to normal disk galaxies than origi- 
nally thought. Indeed, Malin 1 may have much in 
common with the recently discovered class of ob- 



Table 1 
Properties of the bulge, inner and outer disk and dark matter halo of A/[alin 1 



Property 



Measurement 



Bulge effective radius , R^ 

Bulge effective surface brightness , ^e 

Inner disk scalelength , h^^ 

Inner disk central surface brightness , ZinQ 

Outer disk scalelength , /lout 

Outer disk central surface brightness , /outQ 

H I mass^, Mhi 

Spiral arm pitch angle, P 

Halo concentration, Cvir 

Halo virial mass, Mvir 



0.6 kpc 

16.8 mag arcscc^ 

4.8 kpc 

20.1 mag arcsec^ 

53 kpc 

24.8 mag arcscc^ 

(6.8 ±0.7) X IO^^Mq 

25?0 ± 1?0 

8 

2.6 X W^^Mq 



^From Barth (2007) who used an HST/WFPC F814W (/-band) image of Malin 1 to 
perform a two-dimensional structural decomposition into bulge and disk components. 

From Moore & Parker (2007) who determine properties of the outer disk from a 
deep ground-based i?-band image of Malin 1. 

^From Pickering ot al. (1997). 



jects that host extended ultraviolet (XUV) disks, 
such as M83 (Thilker et al. 2005) and NGC 4625 
(Gil de Paz et al. 2005). All of these objects 
have apparently normal disks, but are surrounded 
by very extended low surface brightness emission 
(sometimes missed entirely in the optical) that 
shows up in the UV as a result of recent star for- 
mation. 

In this paper we make use of a recently pub- 
lished H I rotation curve (Sancisi & Fraternali 

2007) to determine a possible mass profile for Ma- 
lin 1. We use the bulge/disk decomposition from 
Barth (2007) and the properties of the outer disk 
from Moore & Parker (2007) in our model. We 
also take into account the H I mass from Pick- 
ering et al. (1997). The mass models produced 
show that Malin 1 is baryon dominated out to a 
radius of ~15 kpc. As LSB galaxies are typically 
dark matter dominated down to small radii (e.g., 
de Blok & McGaugh 1997; Kuzio de Naray et al. 

2008) on the surface it would appear that LSB may 
not be typical of LSB galaxies. However, it should 
be noted that the studies presented by de Blok & 
McGaugh (1997) and Kuzio de Naray et al. (2006, 
2008) consisted of dwarf LSB galaxies, which seem 
to be dark matter dominated beyond the inner ^1 
kpc and may be baryon dominated within this ra- 
dius. By extrapolation to much large giant LSB 
galaxies, such as Malin 1 , it is not implausible that 
these objects would also be baryon dominated out 



to 10—15 kpc. We also find that the rotation curve 
shear and spiral arm structure of Malin 1 show 
that it sits nicely on the spiral pitch angle versus 
shear relation for normal disk galaxies reported by 
Seigar et al. (2005, 2006). However, we also note 
that more LSB galaxies need to be studied to de- 
termine if they typically fall on the same relation. 

2. Data 

Throughout this paper we use previously pub- 
lished data to determine characteristics of both 
the stellar, gaseous and dark matter components. 
We use the HSTWPC2 F814W image described by 
Barth (2007) and the characteristics of the bulge 
and inner disk described therein. We also use the 
deep ground-based i?-band image from Moore & 
Parker (2007) to determine the spiral arm pitch 
angle of Malin 1 and we also use their exponen- 
tial scalelength of the outer disk of Malin 1 in our 
description of the baryonic mass profile. 

3. Mass modeling of Malin 1 
3.1. The baryonic contribution 

Our goal is to determine a cosmologically mo- 
tivated mass model for Malin 1. In order to es- 
timate the baryonic contribution to the rotation 
curve, we use published bulge, inner (stellar) disk 
and outer (gas) disk properties. We then deter- 



250 



M 



g 200 - 



a 50 




o 



.-^ 150 

o 
o 

> 100 If 



o 



I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 




^ — i-^L 







V 



T\ 



\ 



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 



-^^ 



-h ■- 



• 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 



20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 
Radius (kpc) Radius (kpc) 

Fig. 1. — H I rotation curve data from Sancisi & Fraternali (2007) with best fitting model rotation curve 
(solid line) overlaid. Also plotted are the contributions from the bulge (long dashed line), the inner stellar 
disk (dot-dashed hue), the outer H I+stellar disk (dotted line) and the dark matter halo (short-dashed line). 
Left panel: non-AC model; Right panel: AC model. 



mine several possible mass models and determine 
the model that best describes the observed H I 
rotation curve, by minimizing the reduced-x^. 

The characterstics of the bulge and inner disk 
are taken from Barth (2007) who performed a 2- 
dimensional bulge/disk decomposition of Malin 1, 
based on an HST WFPC2 F814W (/-band) image. 
We then use the characteristics of the outer disk 
as determined from a deep ground-based i?-band 
image presented by Moore & Parker (2007). The 
characteristics of these components are listed in 
Table 1. 

We then assign masses to the bulge, inner 
disk and outer disk of Malin 1. In order to 
do this we have made use of the study of 7 gi- 
ant LSBs from Sprayberry et al. (1995). Using 
their data, we determine typical colors for the 
bulge and disk components for giant LSB galax- 
ies and apply these same colors to the bulge and 
disk components of Malin 1 (assuming the in- 
ner and outer disk have similar colors). We find 
that a typical bulge color for LSB galaxies is 
B — R = 1.5±0.4 and a typical disk color is 
B — R — 1.2 ± 0.2. Based upon these colors 
we determine a range of calibrated stellar mass- 



to-light {M/L) ratios for the /-band and /?-band 
from Bell et al. (2003) for the bulge, (A//L7)buigo, 
the inner disk, (M//v/)disk, and the outer disk, 
(M//7ij)disk- In our models we allow mass-to-light 
ratios in the ranges of 1.5 < (M//y/)buigc < 3.8 
1.2 < (M//y/)disk < 2.1 (measured in /-band so- 
lar units) and 1.3 < (M/L/j)disk < 2.7 (measured 
in /?-band solar units), and we allow the mass- 
to-light ratios to vary in these ranges in steps of 
0.1. Large ranges in mass-to- light ratios are used 
in order to take into account the large scatter in 
the relationships presented by Bell et al. (2003). 
We use the bulge, inner disk and outer disk light 
profiles to determine the stellar mass contribution 
M, = (M/i/)Lbuigc + {M/Li)Lin + iM/LR)Lout, 
where Lbuige is the Lband luminosity of the bulge, 
Lin is the I-band luminosity of the inner disk and 
Lout is the R-band luminosity of the outer ex- 
tended disk. This outer extended disk was seen 
in the deep imaging of Moore & Parker (2007) to 
extend to at least a radius of 124 kpc. This disk 
is dominated by H I gas and is estimated to have 
a mass of (6.8 ± 0.7) x 10^°Mq (Pickering et al. 
1997). In this paper we also take into account this 
gas mass of the outer H I disk and assume that it 



follows the same exponential disk scalelength of 53 
kpc as the low surface brightness i?-band disk de- 
termined by Moore & Parker (2007). We also add 
in a stellar component (as described above) based 
upon the R band surface brightness measurements 
of Moore & Parker (2007) and the above M/L val- 
ues. It turns out that the stellar mass and the gas 
mass in the outer disk are approximately equal. 

3.2. Modeling the dark matter halo 

We now explore a range of allowed dark matter 
halo masses and density profiles, adopting two ex- 
treme models for disk galaxy formation. In the 
first we assume that the dark matter halo sur- 
rounding Malin 1 has not responded significantly 
to the formation of a disk, i.e., adiabatic contrac- 
tion (AC) does not occur. We refer to this as our 
"non-AC" model. In this case, the dark matter 
contribution to the rotation curve is described by 
a density profiles that mirrors those found in dis- 
sipationless dark matter simulations. 



p(r) 



(r/rs)(l +r/rs 



(1) 



where r^ is a characteristic "inner" radius, and 
Ps is a corresponding inner density. Here we 
have adopted the profile shape of Navarro et al. 
(1996; hereafter NFW). The NEW profile is a two- 
parameter function and is completely specified by 
choosing two independent parameters, e.g., the 
virial mass M^ir (or virial radius i?vir) and concen- 
tration Cvir = Rvir/fs define the profile completely 
(see Bullock et al. 2001b for a discussion). Simi- 
larly, given a virial mass Mvir and the dark matter 
circular velocity at any radius, the halo concentra- 
tion Cvir is completely determined. 

In the second class of models we adopt the sce- 
nario of adiabatic contraction (AC) discussed by 
Blumenthal et al. (1986; see also Bullock et al. 
2001a and Pizagno et al. 2005). Here we assume 
that the baryons and dark matter initially follow 
an NFW profile and that the baryons cool and 
settle into the halo center slowly compared to a 
typical orbital time. This slow infall provokes an 
adiabatic contraction in the halo density distribu- 
tion and gives rise to a more concentrated dark 
matter profile. The idea of adiabatic contraction 
was originally discussed as to explain the "conspir- 
acy" between dark halos and disk sizes that gives 
rise to a featureless rotation curve (Rubin et al. 



1985) but has since proven to be remarkably ac- 
curate in describing the formation of disk galax- 
ies in numerical simulations (e.g., Gnedin et al. 
2004, and references therein), although the degree 
to which this process operates in the real universe 
is currently uncertain. For example. Button et al. 
(2005) showed that adiabatic contraction models 
are inconsistent with the rotation curves measured 
and the expected NFW concentrations for a sam- 
ple of six galaxies. They suggest that mechanisms 
such as stellar feedback and stellar bars may re- 
sult in less concentrated halos than predicted by 
adiabatic concentration. 

In our AC model we take the contraction into 
account following the prescription of Blumenthal 
et al. (1986). Note that Gnedin et al. (2004) advo- 
cate a slightly modified prescription, but the dif- 
ferences between the two methods are small com- 
pared to the differences between our AC model 
and our non-AC model. In principle, any obser- 
vational probe that can distinguish between AC 
and non-AC-type scenarios provides an important 
constraint on the nature of gas infall into galaxies 
(i.e., was it fast or was it slow?). 

We iterate over the central and ±1(t val- 
ues found in the bulge-disk decompositions for 
h and L^isk and explore the values of mass- 
to-light ratio discussed above, for the bulge 
1.5 < (M/L/)buigc < 3.8 for the inner disk 

1.2 < (M/L/)disk < 2.1 and for the outer disk 

1.3 < (M/I/ij)disk2.7. In each case we assume 
average values for (M/L/)buigo, {M/Li)disk and 
(M/Lfl)disk- For each choice of bulge-inner disk- 
outer disk model parameters and mass-to-light 
ratios, we allow the (initial) halo NFW concen- 
tration parameter to vary over the range of viable 
values, Cvir = 3-31 (Bullock et al. 2001b). We 
then determine the halo virial mass Mvir nec- 
essary to reproduce the rotation velocity at 2.2 
inner disk scalelengths (V2.2i„ = 10.56 kpc) and 
the rotation velocity at 2.2 outer disk scalelengths 
(V2.2out = 116.6 kpc) for the galaxy and deter- 
mine the implied fraction of the mass in the 
system in the form of stars compared to that 
"expected" from the Universal baryon fraction, 
/^ — M*/(/fcMvir). We make the (rather loose) 
demand that /* lies within the range of plausible 
values 0.01/t < /* < /&. 

For each chosen value of Cvir and adopted disk 
formation scenario (AC or non-AC), the chosen 



Table 2 

MALIN 1 BEST FITTING MODELS. 



Parameter 




non-AC 


AC 


Shear 




0.50±0.01 


0.47±0.01 


NFW concentration, Cvir 




15 


8 


Virial mass, Mvir (Mq) 




1.8 X 10^^ 


2.6 X 10^^ 


Bulge mass-to-light ratio, (M/ 


'ii-)bulgo 


2.2 


2.2 


Inner disk mass-to-Ught ratio, 


(M/L,)di.k 


1.2 


1.2 


Outer disk mass-to-Ught ratio. 


(M/LH)di.k 


1.3 


1.3 


xV"' 




2.45 


1.30 



Note. — "non-AC" is the best-fit model to tiie rotation curve from Sancisi 
& Fraternali (2007) without adiabatie eontration. "AC" is the best-fit 
model to the same rotation curve data using the Adiabatie Contraction 
prescription from Blumcnthal et al. (1986). 



values of V2.2i„ and V2.2out constraints define the 
rotation curve completely and thus provide an im- 
plied shear rate at every radius. Figure 1 shows 
the H I rotation velocity data from Sancisi & Fra- 
ternali (2007) overlaid with best-fitting model ro- 
tation curves that we derive for Malin 1 for both 
the non-AC {left panel) and AC {right panel) mod- 
els. The best fit overall rotation curve model is 
divided into its bulge, inner disk, outer disk and 
halo components. We find that the best fitting ro- 
tation curve model is more consistent with a halo 
that has undergone adiabatie contraction, rather 
than a pure NFW model. Our preference for the 
AC model is inconsistent with the findings that an 
adiatically contracted halo model rarely describes 
the observed rotation curves of disk galaxies (e.g., 
Kassin et al. 2006a, b), yet consistent with the 
rotation curve of M31, which also appears to re- 
quire adiabatie contraction (Klypin et al. 2002; 
Seigar et al. 2008a). Given the accumulation of 
evidence that the rotation curves of disk galaxies 
(especially late-type disk galaxies with little or no 
bulge) tend to be inconsistent with the predictions 
of AC, it is surprising that our AC model seems to 
work best for Malin 1 . Considering that the rota- 
tion curve of M31 (the nearest and best-studied of 
galaxies) is also consistent with the expectations of 
AC (e.g., Seigar et al. 2008a), maybe this suggests 
that Malin 1 has properties similar to those of nor- 
mal surface brightness, bulge-dominated galaxies, 
of which to-date only a handful have been stud- 
ied in this manner. From here on, we adopt our 
AC model as the fiducial model. The virial mass, 
Mvir, and concentration, Cvir, for the best fitting 



halo model are listed in Table 1. Table 2 lists pa- 
rameters of both the non-AC and AC models for 
comparison. Figure 2 shows the enclosed mass as 
a funtion of radius for our best-fitting AC model, 
separated into bulge, inner disk, outer disk and 
halo components. 

The most interesting aspect of the best-fitting 
rotation curve, is the fact that it appears to be 
dominated by the bulge in the inner regions of 
Malin 1, out to a radius of ^ 7 kpc. As LSB 
galaxies are often referred to as being dark matter 
dominated at all radii, on the surface this result 
would suggest that Malin 1 may not be a typi- 
cal LSB galaxy. However, the studies of dwarf 
LSB galaxies by de Blok & McGaugh (1997) and 
Kuzio de Naray et al. (2006, 2008) show that 
these galaxies may actually be baryon dominated 
in their very central ~1 kpc. By extrapolation 
to giant LSB galaxies it may seem plausible that 
these larger counterparts may also be baryon dom- 
inated out to ~ 5 — 10 kpc. However, a common 
criterion for classifying LSB galaxies is a disk cen- 
tral surface brightness fainter than fis = 23.0 mag 
arcsec^^ (Impey & Bothun 1997). A galaxy with 
a disk central surface brightness fainter than this 
would present a > 4cr deviation from the distri- 
bution of disk surface brightnesses found by Free- 
man (1970). As a result any galaxy with a disk 
central surface brightness les than /is = 23.0 mag 
arcsec"^ is typically classified as an LSB. However, 
Barth (2007) determined a B band disk central 
surface brightness of /j.b{0) — 22.3 mag arcsec"^ 
for Malin 1. This would not classify Malin 1 as 




10 
Radius (kpc) 



Fig. 2. — Total enclosed mass (solid line) as a 
function of radius for Malin 1 for the best-fitting 
AC model. The enclosed mass is divided into its 
bulge (short-dashed line), inner disk (long-dashed 
line), outer disk (dotted line) and dark matter halo 
(dot-dashed line) components. The data points 
correspond to the H I rotation curve data from 
Sancisi & Fraternali (2007) shown in the left panel 
of Figure [TJ 

an LSB galaxy, but as an intermediate surface 
brightness disk, if we were to use the classification 
system of McGaugh (1996). Taken together with 
our mass profile, which seems to suggest that Ma- 
lin 1 is baryon dominated out to large radii, this 
may be revealing that Malin 1 is not as atypical 
as originally thought. It seems that Malin 1 has 
characteristics that are similar to those of SBO 
type galaxies, but it is also embedded in a very 
extended, optically faint, gas-rich outer disk be- 
yond its normal inner disk. 

Although the inner most point of the rotation 
curve is at 15 kpc, it would be difficult to model 
Malin 1 with any cosmologically motivated dark 
matter profile that would not be baryon domi- 
nated within '^ 5 kpc. Even a pseudo-isothermal 
profile (see e.g., Simon et al. 2005; Kuzio de 
Naray et al. 2006 for a description of the pseudo- 
isothermal profile) would be baryon dominated out 
to a similarly large radius, as such a profile tends 



to provide comparitively less dark matter at small 
radii. 

Given the lack of points within 15 kpc, it is 
almost impossible to determine whether a NFW 
model or a pseudo-isothermal model provides the 
best possible profile for the dark matter halo of 
Malin 1. The difference between these two types 
of dark matter halo profile are most sensitive in 
the very inner regions, where the NFW- type pro- 
file provides a "cuspy" inner density profile and 
the pseudo-isothermal profile provides a constant 
density core (see e.g., Simon et al. 2005). To de- 
termine which of these best describes the halo of 
Malin 1, we would need better sampled kinemat- 
ics within the inner 15 kpc. Since more and more 
evidence seems to suggest that pseudo-isothermal 
models work better for describing the dark mat- 
ter distribution in disk galaxies (e.g.. Gentile et al. 
2004, 2005; Shankar et al. 2006; Spano et al. 2008) 
it seems important better sampled spectrosocopy 
be observed for the inner regions of Malin 1 in any 
future study. 

Of course, the use of optical data to model the 
stellar parts of Malin 1 is limited. The expected 
stellar M / L ratio in the optical has a very large 
scatter (e.g.. Bell & de Jong 2001; Bell et al. 2003), 
and ideally we would prefer to have near-infrared 
images of Malin 1, which would provide a more 
accurate stellar M / L ratio. 

4. Does Malin 1 lie on the Spiral Arm 
Pitch Angle versus Shear relation? 

4.1. Measurement of the pitch angle of 
Malin 1 

Spiral arm pitch angles are measured using 
the same technique employed by Seigar et al. 
(2004, 2005, 2006, 2008b). A two-dimensional 
fast- Fourier transform technique (FFT) is used, 
which employs a program described by Schroder 
et al. (1994). Logarithmic spirals are assumed in 
the decomposition. The amplitude of each Fourier 
component is given by 



A{m,p) 



Sf^iS'Li/*j(lnr,6')exp[-i(me' + plnr)] 

SLiS/=i/.,(lnr,0) ■ 

(2) 
where r and 9 are polar coordinates, /(Inr, 0) 
is the intensity at position (In r, 0) , m represents 
the number of arms or modes, and p is the vari- 



^J_l 



■ Block el al. (1999) 
nSeigar et al. (2005) 
Seigar et al. (2006) 
-i^Malin 1 




^I^^Lh 



Shear 

Fig. 3. — The Pitch angle versus Shear relation 
from Seigar et al. (2005, 2006) with MaHn 1 over- 
laid. The red points represent data from Block 
et al. (1999); the blue points represent data from 
Seigar et al. (2005); the green points represent 
data from Seigar et al. (2006) and the magenta 
point represents Malin 1. 



able associated with the pitch angle P, defined by 
tan P — — (m/p) . We measure the pitch angle P of 
the m = 2 component. The resulting pitch angle 
measured using equation [2] is in radians, and this 
is later converted to degrees for ease of perception. 
The range of radii over which the FFT was 
applied was selected to exclude the bulge (where 
there is no information about the arms) and to ex- 
tend out to the outer limits of the arms in the deep 
R-band image of Malin 1 from Moore & Parker 
(2007). The radial extent of the bar was mea- 
sured manually (see, e.g., Grosbol et al. 2004), 
and the inner radial limit applied to the FFT was 
chosen to be outside this radius. The physical 
distance was calculated using a Hubble constant 
Ho = 73 km s^^ Mpc'^ (Spergel et al. 2007) and 
the recessional velocity, Vrec = 24750 ± 10 km s^^ 
(de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991; hereafter RC3). The 
pitch angle was then determined from peaks in 
the Fourier spectrum, as this is the most pow- 
erful method for finding periodicity in a distri- 
bution (Considere & Athanassoula 1988; Garcia- 



Gomez & Athanassoula 1993). The radial range 
over which the Fourier analysis was performed was 
chosen by eye and is probably the dominant source 
of error in the calculation of the pitch angle, as spi- 
ral arms are only approximately logarithmic and 
sometimes abrupt changes can be seen in spiral 
arm pitch angles (e.g., Seigar & James 1998). 

The image was first deprojected to face-on. 
Mean uncertainties of position angle and inclina- 
tion as a function of inclination were discussed by 
Considere & Athanassoula (1988). For a galaxy 
with high inclination, there are clearly greater un- 
certainties in assigning both a position angle and 
an accurate inclination. These uncertainties are 
discussed by Block et al. (1999) and Seigar et al. 
(2005), who take a galaxy with low inclination 
(< 30°) and one with high inclination (> 60°) 
and varied the inclination angle used in the cor- 
rection to face-on. They found that for the galaxy 
with low inclination, the measured pitch angle re- 
mained the same. However, the measured pitch 
angle for the galaxy with high inclination varied 
by 10%. Since inclination corrections are likely 
to be largest for galaxies with the highest inclina- 
tions, cases in which inclination is > 60° are taken 
as the worst case scenario. Since the inclination 
of Malin 1, i ~ 23°, the error in deprojecting to a 
face-on orientation is likely to be very low. 

From the R band image of Malin 1 presented 
in Moore & Parker (2007), the pitch angle of their 
overlaid spiral is measured as P = 25?0 ± 1?0. 

4.2. Measurement of rotation curve shear 

We use our best fit model rotation curve to the 
H I rotation velocities from Sancisi & Fraternali 
(2007) to measure the shear for Malin 1. The shear 
is measured using the same method used by other 
authors (e.g.. Block et al. 1999; Seigar et al. 2004, 
2005, 2006; Seigar 2005). 

Rotation curve shear is defined as, 



u 2\ VdR 



(3) 



where A is the first Oort Constance, lu is the an- 
gular velocity, and V is the rotation velocity at 
a radius R. The shear depends on the shape of 
the rotation curve. For a rotation curve that re- 
mains flat, S = 0.5, for a falling rotation curve, 
S > 0.5, and for a continually rising rotation 
curve, S < 0.5. 



Using equation [3] and the model rotation curve, 
we have calculated the shear for Malin 1 at a ra- 
dius of 10 kpc (the same radius at which Seigar 
et al. 2005, 2006 measured their values for rota- 
tion curve shear). The dominant source of error 
on the measurement of shear is the rms error in 
the rotation curve. This is typically < 10%. In 
order to calculate the shear, the value of dV/dR, 
measured in km s^^ arcsec^^, is calculated as a 
function of radius for the outer part of the rota- 
tion curve (i.e., past the radius of turnover and 
the bulge component). 

Using this technique we find a rotation curve 
shear of Mahn 1,5' = 0.47 ± 0.01, indicating that 
the rotation curve for Malin 1 is declining at this 
radius. 

4.3. The shear versus pitch angle relation 

From the spiral arm detected by Moore & 
Parker (2007), the pitch angle of Malin 1 is P = 
25?0 ± 1?0. We also find a shear of S* = 0.47 ±0.01 
from the H I rotation curve presented by Sancisi 
& Fraternali (2007). Figure 3 shows the result of 
plotting the pitch angle and shear of Malin 1 on 
the spiral arm pitch angle versus rotation curve 
shear relation from Seigar et al. (2005, 2006). As 
can be seen Malin 1 fits nicely on this relation, 
which was originally determined for normal spi- 
ral galaxies. This is the first LSB galaxy which 
has been plotted on the shear versus pitch angle 
relation. It now seems appropriate that these mea- 
surements be made for more LSB galaxies to see if 
their shear and pitch angle remain consistent with 
the relation for normal brightness galaxies. 

5. Conclusions 

We conclude that Malin 1 is not as atypi- 
cal as originally thought. We highlight the fact 
that its B band disk central surface brightness 
of ^b{0) = 22.3 mag arcsec"^ as determined by 
Earth (2007) seems to place it in the category of 
intermediate brightness galaxies (McGaugh 1997). 
Taken together with our result here, that Malin 
1 appears to be baryon dominated to ~10 kpc, 
this may suggest that Malin 1 has characteristics 
typical of normal galaxies. However, it still re- 
mains a very unusual galaxy, as it is also embed- 
ded in a very extended, gas-rich, outer disk. While 
Earth (2007) compared Mahn 1 to SBO galaxies. 



the discovery of spiral structure in its disk (Moore 
& Parker 2007) would suggest that Malin 1 may 
very well be of later-type than this. The break in 
the outer disk of Malin 1 to that of a disk with a 
larger scalelength is not unusual for disk galaxies 
(e.g., Pohlen et al. 2002; Erwin et al. 2005, 2007). 
Malin 1 may just exhibit an extreme case of this 
phenomenon. 

The spiral structure and rotation curve shear 
of Malin 1 are both consistent with those of nor- 
mal disk galaxies, and they both fall nicely on the 
rotation curve shear versus spiral arm pitch an- 
gle relation reported by Seigar et al. (2005, 2006). 
It is possible that a comparison of shear values 
and pitch angles for LSB galaxies reveal that they 
follow the same relation as normal galaxies. For 
this reason, in the future, we intend to make these 
measurement for a large sample of LSE galaxies. 

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC 
Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated 
by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California In- 
stitute of Technology, under contract with the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
The research presented in this paper has been 
made possible by the Arkansas Space Grant Con- 
sortium. MSS also acknowledges the anonymous 
referee, whose input greatly improved the content 
of this article. 

REFERENCES 

Aguirre, J. A. L., Elias-Rosa, N., Corsini, E. M., 
& Mufioz-Tuiion, C. 2005, A&A, 434, 109 

Earth, A. J. 2007, AJ, 133, 1085 

Eell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 520, 212 

Eell, E. F., Mcintosh, D. H., Katz, N., Weinberg, 
M. D. 2003, ApJ, 585, 117 

Elock, D. L., Puerari, I., Frogel, J. A., Eskridge, 
P. E., Stockton, A., & Fuchs, E. 1999, Ap&SS, 
269, 5 

Elumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Flores, R., & 
Primack, J. R. 1986, ApJ, 301, 27 

Eothun, G. D., Impey, C. D., Malin, D. F., & 
Mould, J. R. 1987, AJ, 94, 23 



Bullock, J. S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T. S., Kravtsov, 
A. v., Klypin, A. A., Porciani, C, & Primack, 
J. R. 2001a, ApJ, 555, 240 

Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, 
R. S., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., Primack, 
J. R., & Dekel, A. 2001b, MNRAS, 321, 559 

Considere, S., & Athanassoula, E. 1988, A&AS, 
76, 365 

de Blok, W. J. G., & McGaugh, S. S. 1997, MN- 
RAS, 290, 533 

de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, 
H. G., Buta, R. J., Paturel, G., & Fouque, R. 
1991, The Third Reference Catalog of Bright 
Galaxies (New York: Springer) (RC3) 

Button, A. A., Courteau, S., de Jong, R., & Carig- 
nan, C. 2005, ApJ, 619, 218 

Erwin, P., Beckman, J. E., & Pohlen, M. 2005, 
ApJ, 626, L81 

Erwin, P., Pohlen, M., & Beckman, J. E. 2007, 
AJ, in press (astro-ph/0709.3505) 

Garcia-Gomez, C., & Athanassoula, E. 1993, 
A&AS, 100, 431 

Gentile, G., Salucci, P., Klein, U., Vergani, D., & 
Kalberla, P. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 903 

Gentile, G., Burkert, A., Salucci, P., Klein, U., & 
Walter, F. 2005, ApJ, 634, 145 

Gnedin, O. Y., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., & 
Nagai, D. 2004 ApJ, 616, 16 

Grosbol, P., Patsis, P. A., & Pompei, E. 2004, 
A&A, 423, 849 

Impey, C., & Bothim, G. 1989, ApJ, 341, 89 

Impey, C., & Bothmi, G. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 267 

Kassin, S. A., de Jong, R. S., & Pogge, R. W. 
2006a, ApJS, 162, 80 

Kassin, S. A., de Jong, R. S., & Weiner, R. J. 
2006b, ApJ, 643, 804 

Klypin, A., Zhao, H., & Somerville, R. S. 2002, 
ApJ, 573, 597 



Kuzio de Naray, R., McGaugh, S. S., de Blok, 
W. J. G., & Bosma, A. 2006, ApJS, 165, 461 

Kuzio de Naray, R., McGaugh, S. S., & de Blok, 
W. J. G. 2008, ApJ676, 920 

Matthews, L. D., van Driel, W., & Monnier- 
Ragaigne, D. 2001, A&A, 365, 1 

McGaugh, S. S. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 337 

Moore, L., & Parker, Q. A. 2007, PASA, 23, 165 

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 
1996, ApJ, 462, 563 (NEW) 

Pickering, T. E., Impey, C. D., van Gorkom, J. H., 
& Bothun, G. D. 1997, AJ, 114, 1858 

Pizagno, J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 844 

Pohlen, M., Dettmar, R.-J., Liitticke, R., & Aron- 
ica, G. 2002, A&A, 392, 807 

Rubin, V. C., Burstein, D., Ford, W. K., & Thon- 
nard, N. 1985, ApJ, 289, 81 

Sancisi, R., & Fraternali, F. 2007, in The Impact 
of HST on European Astronomy, Proc. ESLAB 
Symp. 41, in press (astro-ph/0707.2377) 

Schroder, M. F. S., Pastoriza, M. G., Kepler, S. O., 
& Puerari, I. 1994, A&AS, 108, 41 

Seigar, M. S., & James, P. A. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 
285 

Seigar, M. S., Block, D. L., & Puerari, I. 2004, 
in Penetrating Bars Through Masks of Cosmic 
Dust: The Hubble Tuning Fork Strikes a New 
Note, ed. D. L. Block, I. Puerari, K. C. Free- 
man, R. Groess, & E. K. Block (Dordrehct: 
Springer), 155 

Seigar, M. S. 2005, MNRAS, 361, L20 

Seigar, M. S., Block, D. L., Puerari, I., Chorney, 
N. E., & James, P. A. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1065 

Seigar, M. S., Bullock, J. S., Barth, A. J., & Ho, 
L. C. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1012 

Seigar, M. S., Barth, A. J., & Bullock, J. S. 2008a, 
MNRAS, submitted ( |astro-ph/0612228| ) 

Seigar, M. S., Kennefick, D., Kennefick, J., & 
Lacy, C. H. S. 2008b, ApJ, in press (astro- 
ph/0804.0773) 



Shankar, F., Lapi, A., Salucci, P., dc Zotti, G., & 
Danese, L. 2006, ApJ, 643, 14 

Simon, J. D., Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A., Blitz, L., 
& Gates, E. L. 2005, ApJ, 621, 757 

Spano, M., Marcelin, M., Amram, P., Carignan, 
C, Epinat, B., & Hernandez, O. 2008, MNRAS, 
383, 297 

Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377 

Sprayberry, D., Impey, C. D., Bothun, G. D., & 
Irwin, M. J. 1995, AJ, 109, 558 



This 2-coluinn preprint was prepared with the AAS lATJiiX 
macros v5.2. 



10